Allahabad High Court
Sarvesh Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru Special Secy. ... on 3 May, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7642 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Special Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Singh Chauha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri D.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.3 and 4.
On the first date of admission, the instructions were sought from the opposite parties as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered with the ratio of the case of Vipin vs. State of U.P. & others reported in [2013] 7 ADJ 274, therefore, notice to the private-opposite party i.e. the Committee of Management could not be issued.
Issue notice to opposite party No.5, by both ways, returnable at an early date.
Steps be taken within three days. Office to proceed accordingly.
Office is directed to issue necessary Dasti Notices to the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve upon the opposite party No.5 i.e. the Committee of Management, outside the Court and thereafter he shall file the affidavit of service.
Today, Sri Chauhan has filed the rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record, enclosing therewith the copy of judgment and order dated 12.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.14691 (M/S) of 2017, whereby the identical controversy has been dealt with.
This Court vide order dated 12.07.2017 has held that the Government Order dated 15.03.2012, does not have any application to the recruitment process conducted for the purpose of making appointing against teaching and non-teaching posts in the Junior High School, therefore to say that the Government Order dated 06.11.2015 lifts the ban on recruitment only against the teaching posts and not against non-teaching posts, will not carry any lawful meaning.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court was pleased to allow the said petition quashing the impugned order.
In the present case, the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 also indicates about the Government Order dated 15.03.2012 and 06.11.2015 in respect of ban and in the wake of the aforesaid Government Order the claim of the present petitioner has been rejected. Therefore, it appears that in the present case the benefit of judgment and order dated 12.07.2017 (supra) may be extended to the present petitioner.
List this petition on 13.05.2019, at 3:30 p.m.
In the meantime, the District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi shall seek specific instructions in respect of the contents of para-5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 04.04.2019.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
